Plaintiff,
currently incarcerated at Centralia Correctional Center
(“Centralia”), has brought this pro se civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He claims
that Defendants knowingly served beverages which were
contaminated with unsafe levels of benzene, in Centralia and
other prisons, with deliberate indifference to the risks to
inmates' health. Plaintiff alleges that as a result, he
has developed colitis and other physical symptoms.

Plaintiff
originally filed this action jointly with fellow inmate
Mitchell Morrow. On April 11, 2018, Morrow's claims were
severed into a separate action, Morrow v. Baldwin,
No. 18-cv-908-DRH. (Doc. 6). Plaintiff has pointed out
that the claims raised herein are largely duplicative of
those raised in a 2017 case by another Centralia
prisoner-plaintiff, Trainor v. Baldwin, No.
17-cv-369-DRH-DGW. (Doc. 7).

This
case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under §
1915A, the Court is required to screen prisoner complaints to
filter out non-meritorious claims. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(a). The Court must dismiss any portion of the complaint
that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, or asks for money damages
from a defendant who by law is immune from such relief. 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

An
action or claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable
basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams,490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Frivolousness is an
objective standard that refers to a claim that “no
reasonable person could suppose to have any merit.”
Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 1026-27 (7th Cir.
2000). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007). The claim of entitlement to relief must cross
“the line between possibility and plausibility.”
Id. at 557. Conversely, a complaint is plausible on
its face “when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal,556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Although the Court is obligated to accept factual allegations
as true, see Smith v. Peters,631 F.3d 418, 419 (7th
Cir. 2011), some factual allegations may be so sketchy or
implausible that they fail to provide sufficient notice of a
plaintiff's claim. Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574,
581 (7th Cir. 2009). Additionally, Courts “should not
accept as adequate abstract recitations of the elements of a
cause of action or conclusory legal statements.”
Id. At the same time, however, the factual
allegations of a pro se complaint are to be liberally
construed. See Arnett v. Webster,658 F.3d 742, 751
(7th Cir. 2011); Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance
Serv.,577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).

Applying
these standards, the Court finds that some of Plaintiff's
claims survive threshold review under § 1915A.

The
Complaint

Plaintiff
brings his claims against current Director of the Illinois
Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) Baldwin, as
well as former IDOC Directors Godinez, Randle, and Taylor.
(Doc. 1, pp. 1-2). Other Defendants include Centralia Warden
Mueller, Grievance Officer Walker, Administrative Review
Board official Knauer, and a No. of Jane/John Does. This
group of Unknown Defendants encompasses Superintendents of
the Illinois Correctional Industry (“ICI”) who
distributed contaminated juices to IDOC prisons, dietary
managers who served the juices, and wardens who supervised
the prisons during the time the beverages were distributed.
(Doc. 1, p. 2).

According
to Plaintiff, in 1991 the FDA reported that benzene had been
found in products which contained sodium benzoate along with
ascorbic acid, citric acid, or erthoribic acid. This
combination of ingredients can produce benzene, so the FDA
“called on manufacturers to take measures to impede the
formation of benzene in their products.” (Doc. 1, p.
3). The Environmental Protection Agency reported that 5 parts
per billion was the maximum acceptable level of benzene in
drinking water. Id. Further, people exposed to
higher levels of benzene, even for short periods of time, may
develop anemia, nervous system disorders, and immune system
depression. Id. A published CDC report states that
exposure to benzene may cause dizziness, rapid or irregular
heartbeat, vomiting, convulsions, sleepiness, and stomach
irritation. (Doc. 1, pp. 4, 19-20).

In
2008, union members working within the IDOC raised concern
about benzene in drink products served to IDOC employees.
(Doc. 1, p. 3). This concern was never investigated by
Randle, Godinez, Baldwin, Mueller, or the John/Jane Doe
Wardens and Dietary Managers. The John/Jane Doe ICI
Superintendents continued to use the combination of
ingredients listed above in beverages served to IDOC inmates.
Id.

Plaintiff
consumed the allegedly contaminated juices for several years
during his confinement at Big Muddy River Correctional Center
and Centralia, where he worked in the dietary departments.
(Doc. 1, pp. 5, 15). During these times, he experienced blood
in his stool, chronic headaches, diarrhea, stomach
irritation, and fatigue. Id. He sought medical
treatment at both prisons, and was eventually diagnosed with
colitis, for which he is receiving treatment. (Doc. 1, pp.
5-6).

When
Plaintiff learned about the risks from excessive consumption
of benzene, he filed a grievance seeking an investigation.
Walker (grievance officer) rejected the request, and Warden
Mueller affirmed that denial. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Plaintiff
appealed the grievance to Knauer, who also denied it, noting
that Plaintiff is receiving medical treatment.[1] (Doc. 1, pp. 6,
18).

At some
unspecified time, Mueller and the John Doe Centralia Dietary
Manager stopped serving the juices containing the
benzene-producing ingredients, but then began to serve them
to inmates again. (Doc. 1, p. 6).

Plaintiff
claims that Baldwin, Godinez, Taylor, Randle, and all
John/Jane Does “have known since 1998 about the
research on the formation of benzene through the combination
of sodium benzoate and ascorbic acid, yet they failed to
ensure that their products did not contain benzene.”
(Doc. 1, p. 6). The John/Jane Does deliberately manufactured
and distributed the juice products to prisoners, despite
knowing that they “would tend to contain unsafe benzene
levels, placing prisoners at risk.” Id.
Baldwin, Godinez, Taylor, and Randle did nothing to address
the health risks. Plaintiff was involuntarily exposed to
benzene in the juices served with prison meals, without any
warning of the hazard. The juice consumption created an
unreasonable risk to his health, both present and future. He
alleges that benzene can cause cancer. (Doc. 1, pp. 7-8).

Based
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into the following
counts. The parties and the Court will use these designations
in all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed
by a judicial officer of this Court. The designation of these
counts does not constitute an opinion as to their merit. Any
other claim that is mentioned in the Complaint but not
addressed in this Order should be considered dismissed
without prejudice.

Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against the
John/Jane Doe ICI Superintendents, for deliberate
indifference to the present and future health risks to
Plaintiff from consuming its juice drinks, which contain
ingredients that may produce benzene;

Count 2: Eighth Amendment claim against
Baldwin, Godinez, Taylor, and Randle, for deliberate
indifference to the present and future health risks to
Plaintiff from consuming ICI-produced juice drinks, which
contain ingredients that may produce benzene;

Count 3: Eighth Amendment claim against
Mueller, and the John/Jane Doe Wardens and John/Jane Doe
Dietary Managers, for deliberate indifference to the present
and future health risks to Plaintiff from consuming
ICI-produced juice drinks, which contain ingredients that may
produce benzene;

Count 4: Eighth Amendment claim against
Walker and Knauer, for deliberate indifference to the present
and future health risks to Plaintiff from consuming
ICI-produced juice drinks, which contain ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.